"Democrats up ante against Boehner": CNN
Web-site/URL: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … t-boehner/
Does this mean that Boehner COULD BE GONE in 2011?It means that Democrats are monumentally stupid.
and the Republicans are of course a beacon of rationale, an olympic torch of democracy, a fine example of a caring and understanding government, a moral example to the world of how to negotiate with other countries, implement fair trade and learn about different cultures without firing a bullet.......
I could go on but I can't be bothered.
You go straight to the truth here!
The Republicans couldn't get a pie in a pie fight!
Bloody obvious looking in from outside America.
I don't want a "caring" government. I want it chopped back to it's little tiny proper size and shape and cost, and I want it freaking OUT OF MY LIFE.
We've had 70 years of disaster from you leftists, and it's time you admitted absolute failure. Despite this nation having in excess of 150 TRILLION dollars in debt and legal future obligations by our federal and state governments, all you can think of is how to spend more and how to try to extract more from the people, who are bled dry.
You have killed almost every industry we had to produce wealth, you have run off investment and you have slapped down every effort to improve the country's economy. Well, we the people are officially sick and tired of your complete and utter incompetence.
I want every federal handout program GONE. That includes Social Security, too. Gone. History. You on the left have tried to make government "fix" every need or want people have, and all it has managed to do is bankrupt the nation, and NOT A SINGLE THING has ever been 'fixed'.
You've had your run, you've proven what we all know - leftism is irrational stupidity. Now get out and go away and let the adults clean up your juvenile mess.LOL! What a hilarious rant. I hope all Tea Party candidates campaign on abolishing Social Security. And let's not forget the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act. Get rid of 'em all! Go, Tea Party!
LOL!"And let's not forget the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act. Get rid of 'em all! Go, Tea Party!"
You said it he didn't.
You gonna blame that on Bush too?No, he didn't say it, but Rand Paul did.
This kind of childish oversimplification is why you're losing every argument.
That is not an oversimplification. It is a representation of Rand Paul's position; that is, until he backed off when he realized how unpopular it is. At this point, the Tea Party has only a few candidates in the public eye, so it makes perfect sense to discuss their positions as a representation of the Tea Party. They are, after all, the ones who were elected in the primaries, presumably by the Tea Party voters.
Nope, you very dishonestly misrepresent Rand Paul's statements.
Why don't you try quoting him, your "summary" of his beliefs is completely off the wall.
Rand Paul is a libertarian. Libertarians do not accept ANY use of government for social engineering. Thus, the CRA was wrong, as it contained provisions in language that allowed or actually created the use of quotas. The GOP voted for it in far greater percentages than did, say, the Democrats. The GOP at the time was patrician, mostly a country clubber type atmosphere that wanted an environment conducive to prosperity, and racism and racial division were disrupttive to those ends. The GOP was perfectly happy to try to have more people with rights and economic prosperity - the two are synonymous. It was neither opposed, nor supportive of things like quotas or preferences at the time.
Rand Paul indicated he would have been in opposition to such features of law and probably opposed to it on that basis. Not becuase he's opposed to all having equal rights, but because the basis of the CRA left room, not to end racism and inequality, but to simply shift the target and mechanism of racial divides.
But, apparenlty, you're nowhere sophisticated enough in your thinking to grasp such intellectual meat. You're just full of simplistic sophistry.You criticize me for summarizing Rand Paul's beliefs when I didn't actually do so. Then, you proceed to summarize Rand Paul's beliefs. I merely stated that he was opposed to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act, which is true; you said so yourself. My statement is correct.
No need to insult me, especially if you have to make up something to insult me about.
Since I c an't reply to the above...
You accused RAND PAUL OF WANTING TO REPEAL THEM.
I refuted your statement, along with clarifying what he did say.
I did not criticize you for summarizing Paul, but for doing it wrong.Well, not exactly, but I can see how you could interpret it that way.
My point is that he made it clear that he would not have supported them to begin with, which is not an appealing position to most voters.
I'm not sure what you mean by "can't reply to the above..."What I mean, is that it is at the maximum depth of responses, there is no "reply" button .
First, I admire Paul's guts to take a principled stand on the CRA. Knowing that people like you would do your utmost to misrepresent him and slander his character to others, he still stepped up and stated his opinions.
Second, even after knowing the truth, you still cling to the misrepresentation, finding it useful to use a lie to oppose him, rather than be truthful, and let people decide the merits of his REAL stand on things. That brings you down MANY MANY notches, to level of the worst of the worst politicians, who will use any deception just to win. Why? Why can't you be honest?You are a fascinating character. Are you always like this?
You argue against something I didn't actually say. You've done it more than once. Then, you accuse me of lying and being dishonest, yet won't provide any kind of source to back up your contention. If it's true that I'm wrong, then show me where I'm wrong and I will stand corrected.
Your pretentious style juxtaposed with your off-the-wall debate tactics is very entertaining.
You said here: "LOL! What a hilarious rant. I hope all Tea Party candidates campaign on abolishing Social Security. And let's not forget the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act. Get rid of 'em all! Go, Tea Party!"
Was responded to thus: "You said it he didn't. You gonna blame that on Bush too?"
To which you replied : "No, he didn't say it, but Rand Paul did."
To which I correctly noted you misrepresented Paul, both in statement and position. Now you accuse me of misrepresenting you. How? I called you out for saying Rand Paul wanted to repeal the ADA and CRA. Rand Paul specifically said he did not wish to repeal either. I presume he believes both can be set right with legislation modifying them. Whatever the case, you lied. You even seemed to know just what he said, yet, you have repeatedly posted things patently untrue.This is just silly. You are making my comment out to be much more specific than it was, even when I clarified it later. The fact remains that just like you said above, many Tea Party candidates (and you yourself here on these forums) have professed their disdain for popular government programs such as Social Security. You have advocated the dismantling of a major proportion of government. That is a common theme among the Tea Party.
My point, and I will keep repeating it even though I know you won't acknowledge it, but maybe others will get it, is that your Tea Party ideals are extreme, and when your candidates actually start speaking on national television, they appear loony at worst, and radical at best.
As for Rand Paul, he backpedaled on his original comments about his opposition to the CRA after he saw the reaction. Of course he said he wouldn't repeal it. What else would he say if he wants to get elected?
By the way, technically there are no Tea Party candidates, only radical Republicans who the media chooses to label "Tea Party."
That's amazing. You really have no comprehension of the TEA Party at all. You know, the federal government was given very few things to do. . Defend the nation, prevent trade squabbles between states, and DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. That last one being the biggest reason for having ANY government, which is to defend the rights of the people.
Which is not done by ponzi schemes that suck up 15% of everything you earn, but provide almost nothing in return, or regulations covering toilet tank sizes and what kind of filament must be in your light bulb, or NOT in your light bulb, whatever the case may be. It was not to own 20, 40, 60 or 90% of any state's land, nor was it to be used to lock away the people's resources from them at the behest of elitist morons.
As I said, your run is over. Everything you stand for is a 100% failure. Time to give up and let the adults start making serious decisions for a change.Well, I'm looking at who the Tea Party put up as their candidates. What better way to evaluate what they stand for than to see who they vote for?
Yup, and they vote for people who are NOT the morons who put us in this mess.
You probably measure them on how well they conform to YOUR failed agenda. The TEA Party is more interested in how well they represent what DOES work.
Frankly, I don't care a flipping bit if this person belongs to some odd religion you never heard of, or is gay, or publicly says we shouldn't masturbate. None of that matters in the slightest, because those are not government issues. And I don't expect that any person who is not some "elitist" is going to manage to run for office without ending up being financially strapped. DC is a "rich boys club" and we see what that has gotten us. So they can't pay their taxes? Well, welcome to the club. Fill Congress with them, I say, and give the people some relief.Interesting. I specifically stated I don't care about her financial situation, and yet the majority of your response is about that. Regarding masturbation, great, I'm glad you personally don't care a flip. I merely stated that many people will find her video off-putting and will think she's loony.
Yes, duh, I do measure candidates based upon what I personally believe and want to happen in government. Don't you? As for failed agenda, it's debatable who's agenda is the worst failure, don't you think?All I want to hear is the sound of a giant wrecking ball shredding the federal government, busting it all back down to it's Constitutional size and duties, and nothing else.
I don't want to hear about any other agenda or "solving" any crisis or any other such garbage. 70 years of 'solving' has made EVERY item of attention into a disaster of epic proportions.I have grievances I wish to have redressed going back to 1870!
Do you mind telling us your secret to long life?
Is there a time limit on holding grievances against the government? The Act of 1870 fundamentally changed the Nation!
MEGADETH
Madness comes, and madness goes
An insane place, with insane moves
Battles without, for battles within
Where evil lives and evil rules
Breaking them up, just breaking them in
Quickest way out, quickest relief wins
Never disclose, never betray
Cease to speak or cease to breathe
And when you kill a man, you're a murderer
Kill many, and you're a conqueror
Kill them all ... Ooh ... Oh you're a God!
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury
Have you reached a verdict?
Yes, we have Your Honour, we find the defendant Guilty!
On all counts for crimes against all humanity
By virtue of the jury's decision and the power
Vested in me by the state I hereby sentence you to be
Incarcerated with no possibility of parole for life
Life? ... What do ya mean life? ... I ain't got a life
Well, you're entitled to your ideals, but I doubt that candidates that campaign on that platform will get very far. That's why Rand Paul backed away from his original statements, which were quite clear.
That's why Sharron Angle nearly cries when the press actually asks her follow-up questions about her views on the second amendment.
I can't wait to see how O'Donnell handles the spotlight.Even after being corrected, you're still blabbing the dishonest line.
You're no longer worth conversation.If you have a true correction (you know, a source), then provide it. The only thing I have stated is that Rand Paul made it quite clear that he would not have supported enactment of the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is true.
No, you stated unequivocally that Rand Paul wanted to REPEAL them. Furthermore, if you would be HONEST and include WHY Rand Paul opposed specific legislation, instead of dishonestly leaving it out, most people would agree with HIM, not you.
I guess that explains why honesty is in such short supply. It is inconvenient for liberal politics.Charles Krauthammer who writes for the Washington Post and who I personally hold a lot of respect for said that Castle was a shoe in to get the nomination.
That didn't happen.
I think like Krauthammer you are misjudging the degree of anger being directed at Washington and to the scumbags that currently control it.
Those scumbags belong to both parties and you are starting to see RINO's being removed, dems are next.A Republican primary is a lot different than a general election. Like we keep saying, we'll just have to wait and see.
I guess that means you wont give a prediction?
Probably a good idea.I'm not sure what kind of prediction you're wanting, but I predict that the Republicans will not retake the Senate. I'm not so confident about the House.
I predict O'Donnell, Angle, and Rand Paul will all lose.
Gosh, we did this in only two years! I don't remeber things going that great for the 8 preceding years before Obama got elected! Perhaps Palin will suit you better! LOLOL!
It's ok that you can't be bothered. You haven't anything to say anyway. I hope the Democrat spend 50 million trying to defeat Boehner. I hope they spend every other dime they have trashing Palin. That way, they don't have money to waste on trying to win anyting important. So what if Boehner goes away? I don't care. He's not all that staunch of a Constitutionalist, and nowhere near the fighter I'd like to see in opposition to Obama.
Let the Demcrats continue to be stupid, by thinking that the TEA Party and the revolt against them is "person led" or focused on the agenda of individuals. It isn't. Go ahead, waste their resources on a fight that will accomplish nothing in defending their power or agenda. They are stupid to think that a personal war against Boehner is going to mean anything. It's the ideas that are winning, not the politician.
"The new commercial, which will air on MSNBC"
Its a safe bet no one will see it then.PRAYER TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN
(Never known to fail)
O Most Beautiful Flower of Mt. Carmel,
Fruitful Vine, Splendor of Heaven, Blessed
Mother of the Son of God, Immaculate
Virgin, assist me in my necessity. O Star of
the Sea, help me and show me herein you
are my Mother. O Holy Mary, Mother of
God, Queen of Heaven and Earth, I
humbly beseech you from the bottom
of my heart to succor me in my necessity
(make request).
There are none that can withstand your
power. O Mary conceived without sin,
pray for us who have recourse to thee (3 times).
Holy Mary, I place this cause in your
hands (3 times).
Say this prayer for 3 consecutive days.
You must publish it, and it will be granted to you.I predict a TOTAL win for Democrats. Especially since the tea-bags idea of freedom is "legislating morality". ahahahaa of course it is!!!
We'll keep taking your money while we tell all you bad little boys and girls what not to do.
What a joke they are.
Why don't they support Alan Grayson in his crusade to audit the Fed???
Support Obama in giving $$ to small businesses?
Money for r & d.
Support Arne Duncan and the Obama administration on Race to the Top education money?
Fund new energy ideas?
Keep the unemployment going until the jobs pick up.
We are paying for the cleaning, rebuilding and maintanance of the neo-con wars,started by W and Chinless, you mean to say you can't spare money for our own citizens???"Despite this nation having in excess of 150 TRILLION dollars in debt..."
Folks - this is wrong by a factor of over TEN. It's a good example of just how out of touch the teabaggers are with reality. The national debt is a serious issue - at 13.5 Trillion. A huge chunk of that is the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy - a trillion dollar giveaway - and the Iraq war - which was another trillion.
One move to cut the deficit - and eventually the debt will be to let the tax cuts expire for those making over 250K per year, the top 2%. You would think that kind of rational budget move would enjoy broad support. Not from the GOP or the teabaggers. They want to scream about the debt, much of which conservatives created. (There was a budget surplus under Clinton.) And at the same time - out the other face of the 2-faced monster, they want to preserve low taxes for the rich.No kidding!!
They told us that the tax give-away would "create jobs".....
And what happened?
They created jobs all right....overseas!!
Took them from here, garnered huge profits, paid no taxes!!
Gee, what a racket.
And STILL they spout that nonsense.
Obama and the Democrats have turned this around. Slow, steady, nose to the grindstone.
It can only get better. Unless you the people put the republibaggers back in.
Then we revert to neo-con "for the rich only".
Can we really be that stupid?
Related Discussions
- 26
Lincoln Freed The Slaves. Why do Blacks generally vote Democrat?
by Charles James 13 months ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come about?
- 54
So, how did conservatives get this radical?
by Credence2 10 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
- 18
Hey Boehner, how's that relentless focus coming along?
by Susan Reid 11 years ago
During the 2010 mid-terms the GOP campaigned fiercely on the platform of job creation and, as a result of such promises, the GOP gained the majority in the House of Representatives. As the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner made the welcome claim that the primary goal of the Republican Party...
- 43
How many of YOU who have voted for President Obama are happy with his
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
presidency thus far? Do you believe that President Obama is doing a good job as president? If not, who do YOU wished you have voted for instead of President Obama? Why?
- 19
Yay Boehner! Good start!
by AnnCee 13 years ago
I'll bet PP demonstrators are crying in their beers right now.Cut $40 Billion, not bad for a start. The Democrats blinked.Boehner didn't.
- 25
Boehner and Obama, The Talks . . .
by AnnCee 12 years ago
Get real Mr. President. I'll hold my breath!